Friday, November 13, 2009

Befuddled God (good thing he has so many interpreters)

Their God, it seems, is an inarticulate and confused old bastard who has to rely on his creations to figure out and explain exactly what his words mean and policies should be. Liken it to a ninety-eight year old senile CEO of a company who is kept locked in his office by the Board of Directors who translate his babble into whatever the Board wants it to mean to the share holders.

The evidence for this is overwhelming.

In a recent blog posting I referenced how some Christians believe that once they go to heaven the perks include being able to watch the suffering of those souls condemned to hell. I myself have been on the receiving end of this taunt by religious fanatics who anticipate with great glee this marvelous side benefit of heavenly residence.

The basis for this belief is their interpretation of Luke 16:19-31. In it a rich man in hell converses with and is seen by Abraham in heaven. It’s either interpreted as a parable or a “real” event depending on how intellectually messed up the fanatical theist happens to be … or what his sect leaders tell them.

But, a particularly moronic theist in a message group I frequent took issue with my reference to this interpretation. Evidently I made this all up. I was “wrong.” Never mind that he has had no interaction with any with those fundies who interpret Luke 16 in this way; he has even less understanding that biblical verse has been interpreted in different ways ever since the Church stopped making possession of the Bible and independent interpretation of it a capital offense.

The Reformation, which led to a multitude of breakaway Christian sects from the Catholic Church, was in response to disagreement with Catholic dogma and scriptural interpretation. Today there are some 2,800 different denominations and sects of Christianity. Not one of them interprets every chapter and verse the same way.

Some of these sects reject the Trinity, others reject the existence of a physical Hell. Some believe the ingestion of the wine and wafer is truly eating the body of Christ; others believe it is just symbolic. Some believe all those who never hear the “Word” and thus are unfamiliar with Jesus go to Hell for their ignorance; others believe they are saved. Some believe in the Rapture; others reject it. Some Rapture believers think the seven years of Tribulation happens before the Rapture; others that it happens after the Rapture. Some believe God literally dictated the Bible; others that it was inspired by God. Some believe in Universal Reconciliation; most believe it’s damnation to Hell for non-believers. Etc. All have scriptural “evidence” for their opposing viewpoints.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds if not thousands of other concepts and interpretations of “God’s Word” and his expectations that distinguish a Calvinist from a Lutheran, from a Methodist, from a Quaker, from a Shaker, from a Mennonite, from a Baptist, from a Santeria practitioner, from a Jehovah’s Witness, from a Mormon, from a Christadelphian, from a Kimbanguist, etc., etc. ad nauseam..

These sects and denominations can’t even all agree on the order of the Ten Commandments or its precise meaning.

So with all the confusion of the scripture, the inarticulate ranting and contradictions, what is a true believer and devout Christian to do? Simple -- make the words mean what is most expedient, in the best interest of the believer, or supports his agenda. Don’t wait around for God to unscramble and re-edit his indecipherable-open ended- babbling idiocy, he’s already had a few thousand years to do that and seems to have lost interest or capability. So his creations have to do it for him, in thousands of differing ways. Basically it’s a cluster fuck of self appointed God interpreters.

And if you don’t like any interpretations, branch off -- start your own sect based on what the Bible is REALLY saying. Have lots of wives; handle snakes; roll around on the floor babbling incoherently; kill gays; hole up in a compound and collect weaponry; or move to a jungle and feed your followers cyanide laced Kool Aide. It’s all good. The Bible tells them so

"In a recent blog posting I referenced how some Christians believe that once they go to heaven the perks include being able to watch the suffering of those souls condemned to hell."

Hey Dromedary Hump its kind of like being invited to a big neighbourhood barbeque! huh

Ahh who`s for the burning this week ..Woo hoo!! hell look at that one over there he sizzling away real good and proper!.He`s really screaming!...(Big round of applause from the saintly spectators)

Hump i understand how insane it seems to think heaps of mad folk actually believe this rubbish.It is its crazy.Hard to believe its late 2009 and still heaps do believe this stuff,hmmm??

Not many people that actually do experience these types of horrid situations like with people burning etc, often think of it as some kind of bonus or even as something they want to see more often.Not at all...Some that do experience these things, are infact forever effected by it thereafter...I have not met many who have seen such things that really seem even to enjoy remembering,and talking about it is often just far to tough.We can simply tell its not been anything enjoyable,even without knowing exactly what heppened.

It just shows how much faith is like one great big slumber party, like being controled by some type of auto pilot thats been programmed.You read stuff or are told stuff by somebody,and at first it even sounds like madness to almost everybody, so to learn to simply accept it what they do is they learn to be sure to not think to deeply about all the facts and details.

The facts and details! like honestly considering how they would likely feel after a while from watching this endless barbaric hell scene

Today in my mailbox I received book entitled "The Great Controversy-The Storm is coming" . It is a 400 page paperback book and it was just addressed to "current resident" at my street address here in Richmond NH. There was no return adress just the bulk mail permit # so they must have mass mailed them out . The forward of the book reads as follow " Dear Friend We trust that this book will bring you close to God, giving you happiness, love and understanding".I was incensed. It reminded me of chapter 16 of your book where you are discussing the "Shopper News".

By the way I ordered 2 more copies of your book and will be sending one to the local catholic cult leader BAM (Brother Andre Marie of the SBC in Richmond) Unlike the book I received today I will use my name and address when I mail it.

If all they did was put unsolicited publications in my mailbox, I wouldn't be too upset. Just one more offering to Promethus, bringer of fire. Around here, they like to either knock on your door or accost you in shopping center parking lots to tell you all about what skydaddy had to say about whatever it is. I figure if skydaddy's all that, he ought not need anyone to interpret what he's saying. He ought to be able to clearly convey the idea himself.

Tracey-one week ago I was in my yard raking leaves (oh, so , many!!) A car pulls into my driveway. There is a large "Democracy not Theocracy " sign at the entrance and "Beware Attack Dogs". They park behind my car which has the "Imagine there is no heaven, imagine no hell" "If you want a country ruled by religion, move to Iran" and other bumber stickers on it. They proceed to walk down to me. My 5 dogs immediately rush the fence, they continue down with their bible in hand. I tell them, if they get any closer I can not guarantee that they will not be attacked. They finally got the hint and left. (ps: the dogs: 2 english bulldogs, a greyhound, and 2 mutts wouldn't hurt a fly)

Interpreting the Bible isn't to escape glaring inconsistencies. By that inane argument, you might as well have been claiming Zeno's paradox destroyed the validity of mathematics prior to Cantor. Just goes to show that none of your arguments are based on logic, but emotion and how things seem. Maybe you could have become a good rhetoric speaker, but certainly not a logical one.

I deleted Anon's post, because he has been warned multiple times to use a name.

In one post he said: That the law has many interpretations,thus should we then throw out the law because if it.

And he was very self satisfied with his limited thinking.

Unfortunately, because of his stunted intellect he forgot that the law may be interpreted differently by many people.. but there is a supreme arbitor of what the law means... we call it The Supreme Court.

The laws are not thus forever reinterpreted and each interpretation thus everlastingly valid. Once the courts have ruled that becomes the precendent, and all other interpretations are null and void.

NOw, where is THAT "supreme" diety's clarification and precedence establishing ruling for scriptural interpretation? OOps... nowhere.

"Unfortunately, because of his stunted intellect he forgot that the law may be interpreted differently by many people.. but there is a supreme arbitor of what the law means... we call it The Supreme Court."

The Supreme Court chooses the interpretation. That's the whole analogy.

"The laws are not thus forever reinterpreted and each interpretation thus everlastingly valid. Once the courts have ruled that becomes the precendent, and all other interpretations are null and void."

Untrue, they can be overturned. Examples, Japanese internments in 42-45, and the destroyer-base deal, which was a reinterpretation of the 1939 Neutrality Act's lack of permission to help the Allies.

"NOw, where is THAT "supreme" diety's clarification and precedence establishing ruling for scriptural interpretation? OOps... nowhere."

Incongruent analogy based on similar terminology (supreme court=supreme being)

Cornelius,My apologies. I mistook you for a previous theist troll who hid behind anonimity.

Lets be clear: The supreme arbitor on US law interpretation is the Supreme Court. There is no avoiding this. It exists, and it provides clarity.

Thus, if you interpret a law one way, and I aother, and 2800 people another 2800 differnt ways, eventually the supreme court will make a clarifying decision as to the original intent of the law.

In so doing, all contradictions, interpretations, and oppositing positions are rendered invalid. That the same supreme court may reverse or alter its decision on rare occassions doesn't diminish the fact that the law still retains a single interpretation / meaning, even if it has been revised from the original opinion.Only ONE interpretaion stands at a time.

NOW.. your position was "since laws can be interpretted differently shoiuld we throw them all out". And I demonstrated, with fact, that no.. the laws shouldnt be thrown out.. only the invalid inbterpretations should be AND ARE thrown out by the supreme decising source.

Where is your supreme decider's decision on the thousands of interpretations of scripture? Why has it not acted as the supreme arbitor of the confiusioin and contradiction it supposedly instigated? It doesn, it hasn't it can't.

Thus, your analogy between the proponderance of contradictory interpretations of the bible, by 2800 differing sects and denoninations; and the varied interpretation of law is rendered a fallacy. That is..until your Man-god makes his original intent clear, which he can't because he doesn't exist;or because he doesn't give a shit; or because he is senile. I opt for the first cause.

Now, be intellectually honest (a rareity among theists); withdraw your analogy as fallacious and move on to the next apologetic.

if my analogy is incongruent, then your proffering law interpretation with scriptural interpretation is equally invalid.

Your declaring my use of the analogy between the supreme court as final arbitor of law, and the supreme being as final arbitor of scriptural intent is pure and simple avoidance and indicative of your inability to defend your own anology and comparison.

Reflect on that before you respond and let's see if you have the honesty and courage to admit it.

The point was that, although the Supreme Court has the final say on the interpretations, it chooses an interpretation nevertheless, and such choices are prone to change. Roe v. Wade, etc.

Let me give a clarification of my grievance with your article. I'm not as much saddened by the idea, as much as the lack of evidence:

Historians disagree as to numerous historical events. Physicists disagree as to numerous properties of the universe. I could continue giving examples. The diversity of interpretations is NEVER a pointer to the invalidity of that which it is interpreting.

Now if you were to give examples of things in the Bible which are clearly trying to be reinterpreted by Christians today, that is trying to make the black white, and this was reasonably visible in one or more examples, this would be a valid point. Not simply the existence of numerous interpretations...

not to mention that Catholics and Orthodox can say that they do have a final judgment-caller: Rome and Constantinople, which is a second kind of refutation of this argument, notwithstanding the one above.

As to the final point, the absense of God's physical judgment as to interpretation unlike the Supreme Court existence is not part of the analogy, and is extending it too far.

you SAID : "Now if you were to give examples of things in the Bible which are clearly trying to be reinterpreted by Christians today, that is trying to make the black white, and this was reasonably visible in one or more examples, this would be a valid point."

You want EXAMPLES of verse that are being reinterpreted totally differently today.?? aRE YOU JOKING?

Look, no one is being intellectually dishonest except the man who chooses to win an argument at any cost.

I tried to explain to you how interpretation of the law varies. Then I gave you the much simpler examples of differing interpretations in history and physics.

Yes, there are different opinions as to eschatology, theology, and so on. That's not really anything significant, as salvation is clearly set out in the Bible; the rest are just doctrinal details.

No one is dancing around anything. Anyone who isn't biased enough to be able to review this with 2 minutes of clear-headed thinking can see that this is in no way any kind of argument against Christianity.

By the way, the types of examples I asked for were ones where the Bible says something is "X" and reality said it was "Y" (i.e. if the Bible said the sky is yellow); not examples of Christians arguing over doctrine.

Should we discard physics because no one has been able to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics despite arduous and creative attempts to do so in the past 80 years? According to this logic we should.

You said: Look, no one is being intellectually dishonest except the man who chooses to win an argument at any cost.

No, Corny..YOU are beig intellectually dishoest...or you are a moron. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, now i'm not so sure.

YOU SAID: I tried to explain to you how interpretation of the law varies. Then I gave you the much simpler examples of differing interpretations in history and physics.

he discussion of interpretation leads to an arbitor. ^The siupreme court arbitfrates the final decision on law interpretation. Yet you keep wanting to avoid that, keep wanting to tralk about the possibvpe changing of interpretaion by the supreme authority. THAT is eway you are a dishonest fucktard, or moron.

My entire blog post was about variances in doctrinal / verse interpreation, and that the god thing you worship stepped away from, is an idiot, doesn't care, or doesn't exist, and thus opted out of being the supreme arbitor, leaving thoiusands of various interpretations and confusions. This is so simple a child could understand it. BUT evidently not a theist.

YOU SAID: Yes, there are different opinions as to eschatology, theology, and so on. That's not really anything significant, as salvation is clearly set out in the Bible; the rest are just doctrinal details.

Go back and read my blog again. Everything was about doctrinal details, and the thousands of differing opinions on them. WTF were you arguing with me about??

YOU SAID: No one is dancing around anything. Anyone who isn't biased enough to be able to review this with 2 minutes of clear-headed thinking can see that this is in no way any kind of argument against Christianity.

Read my blog again... it wasn't offered as an "argument against Christianity", it's offered as an observation of scripture which is confusing, badly written, poorly edited, and so unclear as to be interpreted in various ways, including ways that are at odds with fundamental doctrine. My arguments "agaist Christianity" and why is should be disolved as soon as possible can be found elsewhere in this blog site.

Evidently you aren't "clear headed" enough to comprehend an articles actual words and meaning...needing to interpret it differently. Must be a Christian ental defect. You prove my point.

YOU SAID: By the way, the types of examples I asked for were ones where the Bible says something is "X" and reality said it was "Y" (i.e. if the Bible said the sky is yellow); not examples of Christians arguing over doctrine.

Read the blog again... everything was based in interpretation of scriptural verse / doctrine and the failure of a suprme being to arbitrate and unify scriptural meaning. You are evidently too stupid to discern that which is spelled out for you.

There are plenty of "bible said it was X and reality proves it was Y". I've written about them many times. That you even are asking me for examples confirms you're in denial or utterly vapid.

YOU SAID: The discussion of interpretation leads to an arbitor. ^The siupreme court arbitfrates the final decision on law interpretation. Yet you keep wanting to avoid that, keep wanting to tralk about the possibvpe changing of interpretaion by the supreme authority. THAT is eway you are a dishonest fucktard, or moron.

ANSWER: Umm, no, you're pulling the analogy to different tangents. The fact that there is a supreme arbitrer doesn't matter; no one is talking about this. I was mentioning the fact that there are different interpretations amongst the Supreme Court justices. The fact that one eventually gets picked is not relevant. I even gave further examples with history and physics, and so on to clear up the issue, yet, for reasons unknown to me, you keep pressing this, trying to cloud it; probably because you suspect your argument is pretty much full of it.

YOU SAID: My entire blog post was about variances in doctrinal / verse interpreation, and that the god thing you worship stepped away from, is an idiot, doesn't care, or doesn't exist, and thus opted out of being the supreme arbitor, leaving thoiusands of various interpretations and confusions. This is so simple a child could understand it. BUT evidently not a theist.

YOU SAID: Yes, there are different opinions as to eschatology, theology, and so on. That's not really anything significant, as salvation is clearly set out in the Bible; the rest are just doctrinal details.

Go back and read my blog again. Everything was about doctrinal details, and the thousands of differing opinions on them. WTF were you arguing with me about??

ANSWER: And that's not an argument, because doctrinal divergences only point to human interpretations. It's not like one group is claiming that you need to build a pyramid to be saved, while another maintains you have to swim a river.

YOU SAID: Evidently you aren't "clear headed" enough to comprehend an articles actual words and meaning...needing to interpret it differently. Must be a Christian ental defect. You prove my point.

ANSWER: Riiight, just like the countless articles which interpret emotion as logic littered throughout your site (and book).

YOU SAID: There are plenty of "bible said it was X and reality proves it was Y". I've written about them many times. That you even are asking me for examples confirms you're in denial or utterly vapid.

NO...you already tried one analogy with interpretations of law... then walked away from it in disgrace when you had your argument derailed and falsified.

No more analogies from you.

ANSWER: My whole point was that differences in interpretation does not negate the text's credibility. The difference between QM and TR proves this. Don't embarass atheism with these ridiculous arguments..be..as you put it..honest and admit you might be wrong. The sad irony is that you are a prime example to the utmost of what you accuse Christians to be: a biased source of misinformation.

CORNI said: And that's not an argument, because doctrinal divergences only point to human interpretations.

YES...exactly!!.. the human interpretation of poorly written ambiguous scripture...and why your inept god thing "inspired" such confused text, and hasn't clarifed the meanings / ended the misinterpretions for a few 1000 years WAS EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT, the very POINT of my blog article. Anything else you read into this article is your own failure to absorb the written word as it is offered.

When you figure out the above paragraph you, when you can absorb it, and have compared it to my blog posting for corroboration, and realize your idiocy ...then ... and only then... can you post again here.

I drink to that! Now you can too.

Befriend a Camel...

About Me

DROMEDARY HUMP, The Atheist Camel,is the alter-ego of BART CENTRE, a lifelong freethinker, atheist activist and the author of "The Atheist Camel
Chronicles: Debate Themes and Arguments for the Non-Believer,"
and "The Atheist Camel Rants Again!"
A Vietnam veteran and “atheist in a foxhole,” he was awarded the Bronze Star, Combat Infantryman’s Badge, and Army Commendation medal. He is a
retired senior vice president of a national retail corporation
and holds a BA in psychology with a minor in religion.
Mr. Centre is the creator of the Eternal Earth-Bound Pets post-Rapture pet rescue spoof website
which has received worldwide attention and acclaim.
A lifelong New Yorker, Mr. Centre now resides on his "camel ranch" in New Hampshire with his much-put-upon and saintly “quasi-Episcopal” wife of forty-three years and his two atheist dogs. He has two grown, freethinking sons.

The perfect gift for the boy in your priest's life.

The consummation of the Prophet's marriage to his new bride

The Prophet Muhammed

Is it any wonder why he couldn't get adult women and had to settle for children?

Fine Religious Art: Jesus endorses the Constitution of the United States

Well, that settles that!. Jesus was evidently a Founding Father and US citizen. OK, maybe an alien resident. Of course, since Jesus was illiterate he may as well be endorsing the menu at Wendy's.

Maybe Mormon polygamy isn't so bad: Julianne Hough, Marie Osmond...

Oh, wait.... never mind.

Sign in a Hasidic neighborhood in New York

Translation: "If we see your leg we will beat you into a much shorter life span."

Billy is about to get a lesson on the meaning of "The Religion of Peace"

"Thank you for your drawing of the Prophet Muhammad, Billy... but now we have to kill you."

Islamic fun at the beach?

Nah! Just preparing a rape victim for stoning in the prescribed Muslim manner, This should curb her unruly sexual desires.

Christianity Explained in 115 Words

The belief that a walking dead Jewish deity who was his own father although he always existed, commits suicide by cop, although he didn't stay dead, in order to give himself permission not to send you to an eternal place of torture that he created for you, but instead to let you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically promise him you accept him as your master, so he can cleanse you of an evil force that is present in mankind because a rib-woman and a mud-man were convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree, which he knew they would do to begin with. -- Anon. _________________________ The whole thing would make Jesus die laughing, if he wasn't already dead, and assuming he ever existed.

Documentary Storm: a world of reason on video

A gold mine of atheist documentaries, from Dawkins to Maher, to recent apostates. Check it out.

I'm a member of Atheist Blogroll

click logo for complete list of freethinker blogs

Dawkins' Atheist OUT Campaign. If You're Not "Out" Get OUT! (click on the scarlet A)

IN REASON WE TRUST

All articles in this Blog are the intellectual property of the author, albeit the pictures and photographs aren't. Reproduction, reprint, or any use of these articles without prior written permission of the author constitutes copyright infringement.